Physics and the universe - A universe without cause

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

First of all; many scientific theories have evolved into facts. The evolution, the creation of stars. These are all hard facts. The big bang theory is in itself a theory, but is more than likely true.

Second of all; that's an invalid argument. If you have evidence that such creatures exists, the creatures must exist. Evidence is just that; things that are used to determine whether a theory is true or false.
However, the evidence may point to dragons now; there may be even more bits and pieces of the puzzle which adds up to something other than dragons. Which means we've advanced from the first theory to another. The difference here is that religion come to conclusions without evidence, and as such it can't advance.




1: No, whether we like it or not science has derived from religion. The only difference is that science has advanced and provided more rational and logic explanations to the universe.
2: Yes.
3: Depends on. Ultimately I'd blame the humans; even though religion might be the reason they did something bad, humans were the source of religion.
4: No, read the first answer.




You're not making any sense. Please, don't just skip over my arguments. Take your time and answer them instead.

And religion doesn't give any accurate answers that we can find, so religion are not answers in the back of a textbook, they're answers some random guy came over to you and started spouting off at you.

Watch this video, it explains it all

[youtube]zn7-fVtT16k[/youtube]

And I'm agnostic, and interested in physics, but let me ask you, do you really think a being who is limited by the constraints of time and space could Crete time and space?

Your link just points to some random videos.

I don't believe that a being has created time and space at all.

So then the absence of existence is the cause of existence?

And if time were stopped do to the huge amount of mass the how could the mass expand without the time to do so?

And I matter cannot be created or destroyed , where'd the mass come from?

There is no cause of existence; the universe has no cause. Because, before the big bang, there was no time for cause to exist in.

I fixed the link.



time is effectively only an abstract concept associated with the movement of matter and energy, time itself isn't a force or real thing.

if an object (be it light or matter particle) moves from one place to another that is time, to understand this concept you have to imagine reversing time.

if you throw a ball across the room and then reverse time what happens? the ball returns to its original position, all the air particles disturbed move back, the light refracted off the ball moves back.

say you were able to create a controlled environment, and use spacial distortion to reverse a simple action within that environment, you would be reversing time, but the rest of the universe would consider it a forward independent action.

basically what I'm saying is that black wholes don't warp time, they effect the mobility of matter and energy

now I'm not saying there is a god, I'm just saying there is a cause. I personally believe that the absence of existence spawned existence. Or that there is a being who views us as being as simple as a 2d drawing, our comprehension of the universe being limited by gravity and religion is as simple to that being as the corners of the canvas are absolute to a painting, How could a painting understand what lies beyond its own edges?

the only way a being could create something, is if itself were that much greater in scope, comprehension, and ability. And also if it were unbound by rules of that which it created.

Even though time would be an abstract concept; this concept is affected by objects such as black holes. It would then be correct to state that you're moving foward in time, due to your personal time being slower than the surrounding time (on earth, for example).

We're talking about spacetime though, which is time and space woven together.


If I'm not mistaken, Hawking deduced that in order to travel back in time you need something called a negative distortion of the spacetime. The concept itself is very paradoxal, but also interesting.


Oh, and one more thing. Don't take my words for granted, I'm only discussing for fun. I'm not a physicist, so I don't know much about this topic.

thats funny, einstein was basically saying the same thing i said.... or well, vice versa.


I understand the concept of space time, but the research institute cern recently broke the speed of light using neutrinos which are matter and not energy.

that lends credence to the idea the speed doesn't necessarily warp space time because the neutrinos by einsteins definition should have been converted to energy at the speed of light

I am having fun myself, I'm no physicist, but I thought you could do with a break from bible quotes in a topic about the science of the universe

Ah, yes. I also heard about how they broke the speed of light at CERN; have they verified it though? For all we know, there could've been miscalculations or something wrong with the measurement. I tried to search for some updates, but I couldn't find anything.

Apparently, they were going to test another time but I have yet to see any results. How do you think the world of physics would be formed after such a fundamental building block would fall?

well, I think we've been limiting our thinking and what we have perceived as possible for to long, it would open up the scientific community to new pursuits.

and the same result was pulled off in america years ago, but they assumed it was a mistake and wrote it off as not possible. now theyre trying again

Unknown, when I say "You religious people" I'm talking about you, and all fundamentalists/close minded religious people that would never be convinced their religion is wrong no matter what was shown to them, which you've made abundantly clear by saying religion provides THE answers and science simply finds them out, meaning nothing science could ever find out would dissuade you from thinking your religion is right. when I say "you religious people" I'm not referring to the open minded ones like Kenneth Miller, or Bishop Spong. If the bible were backed up by evidence, I'd start actually accepting the bible. However there is no way I would accept the bible as evidence that christianity is right(I.E. that Christ is the savior and resurrected) As I know the history of the bible, and I know that textual evidence is completely insufficient to prove miracle claims.



Enough evidence in science for WHAT? Evolution? Certainly. the big Bang? Certainly. the thing is, we all decide what is enough evidence for a claim's validity on our own, but there are good and bad ways to go about this, including not putting yourself in a position of special pleading, and not being 'ultra skeptical' by saying since one doesn't know absolutely, then one cannot know to any degree. If I were set up to look like I murdered someone ,and the person who set me up was so good that he or she left NO evidence connected tothem, and lal the evidence connected to me, you would be completely right to arrest me.

It's a good thing that science doesn't claim to absolutely know anything because science is open to changing itself when new evidence comes along. This issomething religion doesn't do, and in fact CAN'T do. Religious dogma is exactly the opposite of the effective nature of the scientific methodology.




...I don't believe you. I mean, I can't believe that someone is THAT superficial, that if they found out their mother was an animal...and that THEY were an animal, they'd suddenly stop loving their mother as a mother. I can't believe that, it's too horrible. You are a better person than that, EVERYONE is a better person than that. Since I already KNOW my emotions are chemical reactions, I react to the fact that I have them the same way that I usually would, only with a better understanding of what's going on. The vast amount of chemical processes, and biological processes required to take place to love someone, and be with them, increasing oxytocine levels and making my body feel nice simply being in their presence...it's as if our bodies themselves are screaming, "BE WITH THAT PERSON!" To me, that only makes it all the stronger a feeling, why does it destroy the beauty for you? Especially when it only enhances it for me.




Firstly, you and me decide what is wrong and what is right. That feeling of guilt you have? It's called empathy, and everyone has it...save socio and psychopaths. Religion is NOT the foundation of today's morals...it's not the foundation of MY morals, it's not the foundation of the United States laws. The Code of Hammurabi was around WAY before the Ten Commandments.

I honestly don't care how scientists are portrayed in video games and movies, I prefer to look at real life scientists, the majority of which, btw? Are atheist. and they have no problems evaluating ethics, because god is in no way required. Albert Einstein was a pantheist who didn't think God cared about what humans did, so he didn't have a reason to feel 'guilt' yet when he helped build the atomic bomb, he cautioned against EVER using it, he said, "Please, never use this, it will kill too many." In fact, here's a statement about ethics from Einstein, whonever believed in a personal god that punishes people.

A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
- Einstein

Religion is COMPLETELY unnecessary to have morals, and in fact can CREATE, and often does create, immorality. And before you start spouting off "Pol pot! Joseph Stalin!" and all that, understand that what they had? Was also religion, it was a religion worshipping the state. So I'm not just talking about god belief here, I'm talking about being submissive to any power just because they might do something bad to you if you don't revere what they say.

I derive my morals from common sense, personal observation, and an understanding of my own empathy for others.

Here's a thought experiment. If someone came into a party and called people names, tracked dirt through the house, ate all the dip and flicked people off, would that person be invited back? And if not, why not?

When I observe a person that doesn't respect my personal space, that doesn't respect other people's rights, and often disrespects others in various ways, I observe that I don't like that person. I don't wish good fortune on them and I want nothing to do with them. On the opposite side, if a person shows respct, kindness, and helps others, I observe that I DO like that person, I want to be involved in that person's life, I want that person involved in MY life.

I also observe that I want to like myself. I'm stuck with myself 24/7, I want to like myself or I'm in for a miserable life, so I owe it TO myself to be a kind person, the kind of which that I would like.

Now, stop talking about this, as it has nothing to do with physics, if you have anything else to add to this, PM me, don't post in this topic again.

I'm going at this from a physics perspective. You can't use the creation of virtual particles to explain the origin of the universe, because virtual particles still obey conservation of energy. If conservation laws still work in the domain of the early universe then there must have always been energy/mass. We still do not know all the details of the big bang theory, and it is useless to use it as an argument against religion until we have it sorted out. Time does not need to exist for there to be something before the creation of the universe. One theory that could illustrate this is that our universe's energy was introduced through a higher dimension, which is called brane theory (or M-theory). We cannot experience this higher dimension because we live in a lower dimensional universe, just as a 2 dimensional being can't experience the up or down off a plane. Therefore whether a higher dimensional being exists or not is still possible but is a futile question that serves no real purpose/importance.



I'd also like to comment on this as I've discussed it before. Scientists believe in evolution and one of the concepts of this is that life adapts so that it can continue living. Therefore moral code could just be the framework needed so that humans optimally survive. We do not kill each other and help each other because survival of the fittest has taught us not to do so as it is best for the survival of the species. We punish and rid ourselves of those who sin or go against this code for this purpose. Religion may just be another evolutionary device to control this further by fear of omnipotence but as society evolves further and introduces other incentives of fear such as punishment by governments then we no longer need religion and are in another evolutionary step.